Seismic performance evaluation of different design options of typical reinforced concrete residential building by nonlinear static and dynamic analyses
https://doi.org/10.33979/2073-7416-2024-115-5-4-22
Abstract
A comparative study on the seismic performances of typical five-story RC residential buildings designed with old and new Indian codes is presented. Accordingly, two three-dimensional models of a building designed with the old and new Indian codes are developed using STERA 3D software. The seismic performances are evaluated using the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) and non-linear Response History Analysis (RHA) for three input ground motions, in addition, the structural damage estimates given by damage indices are compared under scaled ground motions.
Results show that the building designed with the new Indian codes provide reduced structural responses when compared to that designed with old Indian codes. Furthermore, the assessment of the damage indices for the building designed using the new codes shows that the building has a more even damage dispersion over the floors and prevents collapse-level structural damage under the considered maximum scaled ground motion.
Keywords
seismic performance evaluation,
nonlinear static analysis,
response history analysis,
capacity spectrum,
damage index
Supporting agencies: The research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Project No. 24-79-00087). The authors are grateful to the Japan-Russia Youth Exchange Center (JREX), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and the International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering IISEE (Tsukuba, Japan) for the opportunity of academic and research cooperation.
About the Authors
Z. K. Abaev
Vladikavkaz Scientific Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Abaev Zaurbek K., Candidate of Technical Science, Researcher
Vladikavkaz
T. Dendup
Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport
Bhutan
Bhutan
Dendup Tshering, Executive Engineer
Thimphu
References
1. Le Roux-Mallouf R. et al. A 2600-year-long paleoseismic record for the Himalayan Main Frontal Thrust (western Bhutan). Solid Earth. Copernicus Publications, 2020. Vol. 11, № 6. P. 2359–2375. https://doi.org/10.5194/se11-2359-2020
2. Debnath R., Halder L. A Comparative Study of the Seismic Provisions of Indian Seismic Code IS 1893- 2002 and Draft Indian Code IS 1893:2016. Recent Advances in Structural Engineering. Volume 2 / ed. Rao A.R.M., Ramanjaneyulu K. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2019. Vol. 12. P. 151–160. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-981-13-0365- 4_13
3. Abaev Z.K., Schildkamp M., Valiev A.D. Base shear seismic demand comparison for buildings with natural stone walls in Nepal, Russia and Tajikistan. Earthquake Engineering. Construction Safety. 2022. № 6. P. 18-45. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37153/2618-9283-2022-6-18-45
4. Aschheim M., Hernández-Montes E., Vamvatsikos D. Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Seismic Performance: Practical Deterministic and Probabilistic Approaches. Taylor & Francis, 2016. 400 p.
5. Avetisyan L.A., Skornyakov T.S. Estimation of seismic resistance of multi-storey frame building according to Russian and European normative documents. Building and Reconstruction. 2018. № 1. P. 80-87. (In Russ.)
6. Bedov A.I., Nikolenko I.I. Provision of operational characteristics of reinforced concrete elements of frames of buildings subjected to seismic effects. Building and Reconstruction. 2021. № 1. P. 3-15. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33979/2073-7416-2021-93-1-3-15
7. Aggarwal Y., Kulariya M., Saha S.K. Seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete hilly buildings under sequence of earthquakes. Structural Design Tall Build. 2024. Vol. 33, № 6. P. e2086. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.2086
8. Shegay A.V. et al. Evaluation of seismic residual capacity ratio for reinforced concrete structures. Resilient Cities and Structures. 2023. Vol. 2, № 1. P. 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcns.2023.02.004
9. Fajfar P. A Practical Nonlinear Method for Seismic Performance Evaluation. Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2000. P. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1061/40492(2000)125
10. Abaev Z.K., Sulthan F. Seismic Performance Evaluation of Multi-Storey Residential Building with Friction Pendulum Bearings: Indonesia case study. Structural Mechanics of Engineering Constructions and Buildings. 2024.Vol. 20. № 1. P. 57–72. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22363/1815-5235-2024-20-1-57-72
11. Baek H.-J. et al. Seismic Performance Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Retrofitted with a New Concrete Filled Tube Composite Strengthening System. Applied Sciences. 2023. Vol. 13, № 24. P. 13231. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132413231
12. Naeem A., Koichi K., Lee J. Seismic Performance Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Building Structure Retrofitted with Self-Centering Disc-Slit Damper and Conventional Steel Slit Damper. Buildings. 2024. Vol. 14, № 3. P. 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030795
13. Harrington C.C., Liel A.B. Indicators of improvements in seismic performance possible through retrofit of reinforced concrete frame buildings. Earthquake Spectra. 2021. Vol. 37, № 1. P. 262–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020936707
14. Abaev Z., Valiev A., Kodzaev M. Development of recommendations for the implementation of seismic risk mitigation policy in the Russian Federation based on world experience. Earthquake Engineering Construction Safety. 2023. № 3. P. 48–72. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37153/2618-9283-2023-3-48-72
15. Manfredi V. et al. Selection and spectral matching of recorded ground motions for seismic fragility analyses. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 2022. Vol. 20, № 10. P. 4961–4987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01393-0
16. Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data USGS. Available from: https://www.strongmotioncenter.org (Accessed: 14.05.2024).
17. Earthquake Disaster Engineering Research Laboratory. Software STERA 3D. Available from: https://rc.ace.tut.ac.jp/saito/software-e.html (Accessed: 14.05.2024).
18. Kitamura H., Miyauchi Y., Uramoto H. Study on Standards for Judging Structural Performances in Seismic Performance Based Design: Evaluation of the safety limit value and margin I and II levels in JSCA seismic performance menu. Transactions of AIJ. 2006. Vol. 71, № 604. P. 183–191. https://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.71.183_1
19. Freeman S.A. The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design. Proceedings of the 11th European conference on earthquake engineering. Citeseer, 1998. P. 6–11.
20. Park Y., Ang A.H. ‐S. Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for Reinforced Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering. 1985. Vol. 111, № 4. P. 722–739. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:4(722)
21. Pradhan S., Li Y., Sanada Y. Seismic performance evaluation and risk assessment of typical reinforced concrete frame buildings with masonry infill and conventional vertical extension in Nepal. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 2022. Vol. 20, № 2. P. 853–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01246-2
22. Zhao J. et al. Seismic performance evaluation of different strategies for retrofitting RC frame buildings. Structures. 2021. Vol. 34. P. 2355–2366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.09.016
23. Nakano Y. et al. Guideline for post-earthquake damage evaluation and rehabilitation of RC buildings in Japan. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver BC, Canada, 2004. Vol. 1, № 1. P. 124.
Review
For citations:
Abaev Z.K., Dendup T. Seismic performance evaluation of different design options of typical reinforced concrete residential building by nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. Building and Reconstruction. 2024;(5):4-22. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33979/2073-7416-2024-115-5-4-22
Views:
163
Email this article 